Video description (my commentary is below the video):
The events of the past year have reduced Russia–US relations to one of the lowest levels in history. And with geopolitical tensions running high, some have argued that the two sides have entered a new Cold War. How can escalations be avoided, and is there a way out of the vicious cycle of this relationship? Oksana is joined by Robert Legvold, professor emeritus of Post-Soviet Studies at Columbia University, to expand on these issues.
The US didn't lift a finger to help when the Soviet Union collapsed and so did the Russian economy. Rather than help, the US sent in a Chicago team advising Russia to grit its teeth through austerity while the Commanding Heights were sold off at pennies on the dollar (rubles).
When Clinton got in, he acted as if Reagan's assurances about no NATO expansion didn't even matter.
The Russian oligarchs, nearly all of them Zionists/neocons, had a field day until Putin put a stop to it.
The US was spying in Russia in a very major way and was caught at it.
Bush-43 came along and gave Russia the Georgia conflict.
It wasn't a bit surprising that Putin and Russia tightened up even more. The US turned around and blamed the Russian leadership for being too autocratic when that leadership had been pretty much driven into it by US policy and actions.
I don't buy it for a minute that there isn't an entire level in the US that always has been anti-Russia. I strongly believe that the Zionists are at the core of that but that they have plenty of Military Industrial Complex entities right at their elbows.
There's a great deal of money in weapons in the US. A hot war in Europe and on Russian territory would be very lucrative for them. They know there still exists MAD as a deterrent to global thermonuclear exchange. They think they can make conventional war, possibly use next generation ABM technology (which is another treaty breach by the US), and make perhaps trillions of dollars in the process.
Once Russia is sufficiently weakened and splintered and under new leadership (inept and under puppet strings, China will be next and easier to knock off with Russia down.
It's the neocons'/Zionists' global strategy and has been for decades.
The Zionists still dwell on the Russian Pogroms. It's payback. The Zionists hate the resurgence of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. They hate it that Russia isn't going the American way, led by the Zionist media and entertainment industries in the US, into cultural "liberalism."
Tie Iran and Russia to Syria versus Israel and the Saudis. Look at the Saudis and oil prices and why, even though it has hurt the US fracking boom. Look at the US constantly turning a blind eye to Zionist war crimes and occupational crimes. Look at what the Zionists are doing right now to the Palestinian Authority by not giving the PA its tax money. Look at what the Zionists are doing to the Bedouins, destroying their houses and stealing their land right out from under them. What's new? American exceptionalism? Exceptionally hypocritical.
Come on Oksana, you can do much better. Cover the whole field. Do two-hour interviews if needs be.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)